ANATOMY OF TORTURE — Historian Christopher Dietrich on the 100-year-long history of American torture; Jeffrey St. Clair on the implications of giving impunity to the CIA’s torturers; Chris Floyd on how the US has exported torture to its client states around the world. David Macaray on the Paradoxes of Police Unions; Louis Proyect on Slave Rebellions in the Open Seas; Paul Krassner on the Perils of Political Cartooning; Martha Rosenberg on the dangers of Livestock Shot-up with Antibiotics; and Lee Ballinger on Elvis, Race and the Poor South. Plus: Mike Whitney on Greece and the Eurozone and JoAnn Wypijewski on Media Lies that Killed.

In a plea where faux-Flintite Moore’s sole premise for ABBies to "buck up" is, "The polls are wrong," he then resorts to selective poll results to make his case: "Only 30% of the country calls itself "Republican," … The majority are with us! … More than half of all Americans are pro-choice, want stronger environmental laws, are appalled that assault weapons are back on the street — and 54% now believe the war is wrong."

In the end, Moore cannot give us one good reason to vote FOR Kerry ("of COURSE he’s a lousy candidate — he’s a Democrat, for heavens sake!") as opposed to AGAINST Bush. Moore, tellingly, is reduced to comparing Kerry to a Pontiac he once owned — a car that lasted but "a year."

And, get this: "(The Bush people) need you to wish we had a candidate who didn’t windsurf and who was just as smart as we were when WE knew Bush was lying about WMD and Saddam planning 9/11. It’s like Karl Rove is hypnotizing you."

Just who is spellbound here? Yes, every thinking world citizen knew the war was illegal and stupid. Yet, Kerry (and most Democrats) voted FOR it and has said he’d STILL vote that way. Kerry went so far as to make the Bush administration’s case on Oct. 9 2002, with a speech on the Senate floor during the run-up to the war:

"With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don’t even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?"

Prior to his beating the War Drum in the Senate Kerry wrote a September 2002 New York Times op-ed concluding: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community’s already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement…even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

Prior to that, on CNN’s "Crossfire" show in 1997, Kerry said, "We know we can’t count on the French. We know we can’t count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it’s in our national interest."

No "flip/flop" here. Kerry then voted for authorization to use force in Iraq on October 11, 2002.

It’s not just Bush and Moore who can’t admit a mistake!

"NO ONE DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED?"

Moving right along, the next item in my in-box was a photo composite of American soldiers who have died in Iraq over the last year. It was titled: "NO ONE DIED WHEN CLINTON LIED"…and ended "And let’s remember in November…"

Apparently, the 1 million Iraqis (500,000 children) who died under ABB the First’s brutal sanctions and almost daily bombings didn’t count. Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeline Albright on 60 Minutes in 1996 was asked if the deaths of a half-million children in Iraq were an acceptable price to pay for the sanctions policy.

The then-Ambassador to the United Nations famously replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."

"No one died?" This unconscionable crime against humanity and the callousness of the "we think the price is worth it" Clinton administration is somehow shamefully redacted in order to bring us into the Democrat fold with the childish bad rap "No one died…"

And, what was that other lame rap? Oh yeah, we’re supposed to "Remember in November."

Remember this: Bush would have to kill at dozens of times the current abhorrent rate just to come close to Clinton in total Iraqi body count!

Gang Green Weighs In

Just as I was wondering how far down the rabbit hole this was going, I opened up another forwarded message. This one was from Bernie Zaleha, Vice President for Conservation of the Sierra Club. It was addressed to the usual insiders — Board of Directors, Conservation Governance Committee and related committees, Council of Club Leaders–and anonymously sent to me.

"For 2005 the Sierra Club has decided that its highest national conservation priority is to:

(insert one of the following depending on the outcome of the 2004 election)

A. Work with the Kerry Administration to undo the environmental damage done by the Bush Administration and the Congress during the past 4 years. Begin the process of creating positive environmental change, by, among other things, reducing our dependence on Middle East oil; improving energy efficiency; protecting our parks, national forests and other wildlands; improving air and water quality; promoting environmental justice; and building a more sustainable society.

or

B. Stop the continuing and accelerating assault on the environment during the second George W. Bush term in office.

In order for the Club to concentrate its energy and resources on this goal it has decided to not have a series of named specific national conservation long range or short range priority campaigns in 2005."

Let’s go to the record: John Kerry backed Clinton’s failing to consummate the Kyoto Treaty. Kerry backed Clinton on failing to upgrade mileage standards, including those of Kerry’s own fleet of low mileage vehicles. On Febreuary 5th Kerry told the Detroit News, "We have some SUVs. We have a Jeep. We have a couple of Chrysler minivans. We have a PT Cruiser up in Boston. I have an old Dodge 600 that I keep in the Senate. … We also have a Chevy, a big Suburban." Two months later, on Earth Day, his story was, "I don’t own an SUV."

Perhaps it’s a good thing that the Club proposes dropping all long and short range specific priorities next year regardless of who wins. Afterall, Kerry has voted against the Club’s Specific Trade positions every time–Kerry voted for NAFTA (1993), Fast Track (1997) permanent normal trade relations with China (2000) and Vietnam (2001), etc. When asked by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel whether he would again vote for NAFTA and permanent normal trade relations with China, Kerry, as with the same question about his pro-Iraq War vote, said, "Yes." (Kinda belies the "flip/flop label when one continually flips and lands right back where he began. And, a cautionary note for all those who think he’ll "come around" once ensconced at the head of the Empire.)

With the Democrats in control of the White House AND the Senate and the House in 1993 and 1994, we saw Ancient Forest logging resumed — the Sierra Club called this Clinton betrayal "a victory."

However, an average of about 200 million board-feet a year actually has been cut under Bush, notes Tom Partin, president of the American Forest Resource Council, a Portland-based timber industry group.

"We’re not asking for anything that wasn’t promised under the Clinton administration," Partin said. "The environmentalists are throwing this all on Bush’s shoulders, but that’s not the case, because it was actually implemented by the Clinton administration."

So again, Bush would have to cut like crazy just to catch up. At the rate he’s been able to cut, in eight years total he wouldn’t even touch the Clinton average annual cut (1.9 billion board feet).

And, can you imagine the outcry if Bush tried to cut an additional 5+ billion board feet of ancient trees with the suspension of "all applicable environmental laws," as Clinton did when he signed into law the 1995 "Salvage Rider," which passed the Senate with John Kerry’s vote in favor?

"Green" King-maker Pimps Kerry and Attacks Nader

Of course, not a (Groundhog) day goes by without yet another effort of the anti-democracy crowd who hijacked the Green Party weighing in pro-Kerry. In a September 19th column, the insufferable nonprofit professional Ted Glick, by all accounts the architect behind the stolen Green Party nomination of David "safe states" Cobb, claims folks "should hope for a Kerry victory: it will help our progressive party cause."

Of course, Glick makes the obligatory assault on real progressives Ralph Nader and Nader supporters: "If the Bushites are re-elected, several things will happen. First, there will be deep and broad anger toward Nader/Camejo on the part of many progressives because of the attack-the-Democrats strategy that campaign is openly following."

(NOTE: Speak for yourself, Ted. "Many progressives" will be voting for Nader–a whole lot more than will vote Cobb, who continues to be nonexistent in the polls. Of course, if Cobb was to actually attempt to garner any votes, I guess he’d be facing "deep and broad anger" from "progressives.")

Glick immediately follows up this with more brilliant illogic–perhaps THE defining delusion of the ABBies: "Second, we will be in a position where our criticisms of the Democrats, out of power, will not have the broad impact they will if they were in power."

Huh? Nader and Camejo are vilified because they, acting like normal opposition candidates, go after the Democrats on the issues. Isn’t that what an "independent" progressive movement should be all about? But when "we" attack, er, "criticize," the Democrats "after" we help return them to the White House, somehow that will have "broad impact."

Talk about turning reality on its head! The only broad impact progressives can have on the Democrats is when they are OUT of power and need to come our way to get our votes. Just recall all the "broad impact" progressives had on Clinton.

With the ABBies running up the white flag back in February, the Democrats didn’t/don’t need to care and proved it with their military pageant of a convention. Any "impact" scared liberals might have had; long ago left the building.

This same guy–a tiger when it comes to going after Naderites–is a harmless pussycat when it comes to taking on the Republicans. He actually calls the timid and ultimately ignored series of foundation-sponsored "safe protests" at the Republican Convention "an inspiring display of intelligent activism." (Where’s the "impact" in that? An insurmountable Bush "bounce?")

About the only thing Glick got right is that "After November 2, we will need to assess what happened on that day and determine how we struggle for justice, peace, democracy and a stronger independent progressive movement no matter which shade of Empire is elected."

Guess that means once he’s done hammering Nader and battering Nader voters, he’ll appraise what happened–though he obviously has his scapegoat pretext already in hand. We’ll be glad to provide the assessment on how Glick et al. killed off any future for the Green Party in the service of a scarcely discernible different "shade of Empire."

Auditioning the New Scapegoat

Exasperated, I went downtown to a lunch counter rather than open any more e-mails. I’d had my fill of anti-Nader screeds, whiny appeals from liberal celebrities, pro-Clinton revisionism and nonsense from the Green Party and Big Green Democrat Caucuses.

While there, I overheard a union guy I know saying, "Can you believe it? Dan Rather just cost us the election."